One universal principle associated with change is discomfort. When a person chooses to change their physical reality and engage in a fitness program, the change process does not began until there is discomfort. When a person wants to change fiscal and spending habits, there is a point where the desire to spend clashes with the demands of fiscal responsibility; and there is discomfort. Schools are no different. We cannot have comfort and growth at the same time. I am not suggesting that we seek and accept excruciating pain, but we have to be willing to be made uncomfortable if we want to grow individually and collectively. I have outlined two steps to help us understand and regulate the discomfort. The first step is for the individual and the second step is systemic.

Step #1 – Read professional literature at least two hours per week

One of the greatest discomforts of change is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when new ideas challenge established ideas causing an internal conflict. I have seen this phenomenon many times in my career. Some of the catalysts of cognitive dissonance are changes to grading practices, student disciplinary procedures, and instruction. Educators tend to have very strong opinions about educational norms and practices and when a new idea emerges that challenges those opinions, an ugly philosophical clash is typically the result. I have made it a practice, since my first year of teaching, to spend at least 30 minutes per day reading educational literature. This habit has allowed me to explore and consider ideas and process them on my own terms. Consequently, when I came in contact with philosophical changes in the workplace, I did not have a feeling of loss or anxiety. I had already processed many of these philosophies on my own and I was prepared to accept the change or challenge it from the wealth of theories and practices that I studied on my own.

Step #2 – Set up pilots

Pilot programs are underutilized in educational circles. We tend to jump into a new programs and practices feet first without a whole lot of beta testing. I have found that most people are not opposed to change when there is clear evidence that the new direction is likely to be more effective than the old direction. When schools or districts jump into change without a period of trial, problems emerge during system-wide implementation that create inconvenience, doubt, and indifference toward the process. I have found that schools or districts that take the time to pilot their new systems with a willing group of professionals work out logistical kinks, collect data that validates the process, and create advocates who influence others to try the process.

Change is a very difficult process, but it is the catalyst to continuous improvement. It tests our ability as professionals at many different levels. Sometimes, when things get too challenging, we tend to look for short-cuts or we quietly surrender. We live in a political climate that demands that we change, whether we choose to or not, but I have found that some organizations are good at creating the illusion of change, rather than being fully involved in the process of change. There are a three key phrases which clearly indicate that an organization is not fully committed to the change process.

Phrase #1: “We are having conversations”

This phrase is a code for; “we have a lot of opposition to this idea and we are afraid to make people too uncomfortable and release an onslaught of political and social opposition.” I recently worked with a school that has been involved with the implementation of the Professional Learning Community (PLC) process for three years. They have created collaborative teams and they have designated time for those collaborative teams to meet. They have created district-wide formative assessments that are administered four times per year. These milestones were reached in the first year of the process. So, I asked about PLC Questions #3 and #4 which address systems of student intervention and enrichment, and the room got very quiet. When people finally began to speak, each answer began with the phrase “we are having conversations.” If your district is “having conversations,” the change process has stalled.

Phrase #2: “We are in different places”

This phrase is code for; “we don’t have a universal system of accountability, and people who understand the intrinsic value of what we propose have embraced it, and those that are averse are allowed to disregard it until they ‘buy-in’.” Schools and systems that use this phrase are engaged in what I call “accountability light.” This is a diet version of universal professional accountability where group expectations and coherence are the norm. Healthy school cultures make collaborative decisions and they hold each other mutually accountable for full participation. When shared commitment is not achieved, a tiered-system of commitment emerges where implementation is based upon personal preference. Partial commitment is the same as no commitment.

Phrase #3: “District initiatives”

This phrase is code for; “there is a huge philosophical divide between school practitioners and central office which has led to a stalemate.” I have had the pleasure to work with thousands of schools on the change process and whenever practitioners refer to the change process as a “district initiative,” it is never good. In essence what they are expressing is a feeling of imposition. In the mind of the school practitioner, they are confronting real world issues and they have their fingers on the pulse of the needs of the school; and central office lives a world disconnected from reality and their priorities are unreasonable and unnecessary. This is a clear indication of poor communication and professional disconnection. If you district has a lot of “initiatives,” effective change is probably not on the horizon.

Effective leadership is a balancing act of support and accountability. Whenever either one of the principles are out of balance, the culture of the organization, and ultimately the productivity of the organization start to suffer. As I travel the world and work with schools in search of improved results, I often encounter leaders who are strong in one area, but deficient in the other. This reality alone is not unusual nor fatal, but a leader has to be reflective enough to understand the need to be balanced and develop skills in both areas. Metaphorically, support should be looked at as an investment and accountability is the expected return on the investment.

When a leader focuses solely on providing support (investment), he/she tends to create a highly collegial environment, but not a task oriented environment committed to reaching goals and objectives. Over time, the employees tend to become spoiled and they can become resentful when asked to move out of their comfort zones (Gardner 1998). In this environment leaders find themselves on a never ending treadmill of trying to satisfy others. We all like to be liked, but that cannot be the driving force behind the behavior of a leader. People have three important needs/supports that leaders have to provide in order to lead their subordinates to success (Muhammad 2009):

Clear, thorough, and frequent communication

Trustworthy and ethical environment

Adequate technical training/support and resources

When a leader focuses solely on accountability, the imbalance will lead to a different form of dysfunction; fear and conflict. Autocratic leadership relies on fear as the catalyst to improvement. What autocratic leaders fail to realize is that though they may be able to achieve a surface-level, superficial form of compliance, they are creating an informal climate of dissatisfaction that will eventually produce toxic subcultures who will orchestrate their demise. In the process, time is wasted and those who are left behind are damaged and jaded by the experience. Unfortunately, the modern context of education lends itself to heavy-handed authoritarian leadership. School and district leaders are being asked to produce improved results without a road map to do so, and in the process, pressure to improve results produces contentious relationships that guarantee that improvement will not occur. Accountability is important, but is only fair and reasonable after adequate support and time have been provided. A person cannot claim a dividend if he/she did not make an investment.

The philosophical foundation of the public school system is the principle of equality. Equality is the belief that everyone deserves an equal chance at success and that everyone is capable of achieving success. Every system in a Professional Learning Community is built upon this concept. “When a school or district functions as a PLC, educators within the organization embrace high levels of learning for ALL students as both the reason the organization exists, and the fundamental responsibility of those who work within it.” (DuFour, DuFour et al. 2010). This concept resonates in our soul and makes us feel like we are a part of something bigger than ourselves. Unfortunately, what is true conceptually is not always true in reality. The truth is, that we love the concept of equality in theory, but our collective behavior as a society rejects it in reality.

The truth is that schools are more racially and socio-economically segregated today than at any time in our history. In fact, the symbol of success in 2014 is to live in a racially segregated suburban neighborhood and to send our children to a school that reflects that same racial and socioeconomic stratification (Goyette and Lareau 2014). The racial and economic test score gap continues to grow, even as we have declared that this is an era of “No Child Left Behind.” Today’s political climate in both the Republican and Democratic parties is heavily weighted in the favor of the middle class, while very little attention is paid to the needs of the poor.

Equality is a wonderful concept, but it is under feverish attack in the modern context. Schools represent the best chance to restore the hope of equality. Educators are best positioned to create systems and implement practices that bring out the best in every student and create a world based upon the belief that all men/women are created equally. If equality is important to you, answer the following questions and ponder your authentic answers:

Does it bother you when a student does not excel?

Do the students who struggle fit a certain profile?

Do you associate their struggles with their personal and/or family profile?

The answers to these questions will provide you insight into whether equality is a slogan or a core value in your professional practice. For all of our sakes, I hope that it is a core value.

I have had the pleasure of working with collaborative teams of teachers who are in the beginning stages of their PLC journey for ten years. Over that period of time, I have had the opportunity to witness some phenomenal teams and I have had the opportunity to witness some very dysfunctional teams. What separates the two? The answer is efficacy.

Efficacy is simply defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result. This may be defined simply, but there is a high level of coordination and focus required to achieve collective efficacy. In order to produce a desired result, the team must first agree on what result that want to produce, agree on the methodology to produce it, and work together collaboratively through the process. Wayne Hoy, from Ohio State University, provides a tool that helps teachers measure where they are on the efficacy continuum and you can access the tool at this link: http://www.waynekhoy.com/collective_efficacy.html.

In a PLC, the desired result that teams work to accomplish is student learning. Not just learning for a few, but a PLC team works towards learning for each and every student. My experience has taught me that educators tend to universally embrace this concept philosophically, but become stagnant when they do not have the tools, structures, and attitudes necessary to bring that wish to reality. If frustration sets in, teams can start to lean of psychological defense mechanisms that make the process even harder.

So, in ten years of observing, guiding, and coaching teams there are two common threads that all of the teams with high efficacy possessed; they kept their collaborative conversations focused on the four essential PLC questions and they never spoke negatively about students, parents, or colleagues. These might sound like simple principles, but they become the foundation for powerful collaboration.

Keep the collaborative focus on the four essential questions; What do we want students to learn? How do we know if they have learned? How do we respond when students don’t learn? and How do we respond when students have learned? These four corollary questions were designed to keep the collaborative team focused on the real work, student learning. To stay totally focused on these corollary questions takes discipline and peer pressure. When times get tough, it is easy to start to venture into other topics and vent frustration over things that are outside of our control. Make a commitment to stay focused on these four questions and your efficacy will increase.

Avoid speaking negatively about students, parents, or coworkers. One of the biggest issues that we hear from schools struggling with the PLC process is that the collaborative meeting can turn into a “complaint session.” Complaining is the by-product of frustration and it is very counterproductive. It breeds pessimism and a negative co-dependence with colleagues that prevents the team from finding quality solutions to problems because they are consumed by the negative atmosphere that they have collectively created. Students, parents, and coworkers are flawed and imperfect, but spending precious time venting to others about their imperfections only serves to undermine our professional effectiveness.

I would highly suggest that any school or team struggling with getting good results from their collaborative teams try my advice. What do you have to lose? If you apply these two simply principals with fidelity, I am confident that your teams will soar and your students will be the ultimate beneficiaries.

“No generation can escape the responsibility of deciding what students should learn by analyzing what adults are called upon to do and the current climate of their society.” (Bellanca and Brandt, 2010). In 2013, the local farms have been taken over by corporations, the factories are closing, and the days of medium-skill, high wage jobs are a thing of the past. Schools, especially school leaders, must be poised to move their focus and agenda beyond standardized test scores and into the lofty task of preparing students for a world very different than the one that they experienced as a child. School leaders must be poised to push an ambitious agenda, while maximizing scarce resources and creativity. This is not an easy task, but there are great leaders all over the country stepping up to this task.

Jason Hillman, principal of Meadowlark Elementary School in Sheridan, Wyoming is a prime example. His school struggled with maximizing human resources and improving student achievement. Jason and his staff embraced the Professional Learning Community (PLC) model of school improvement and they were recognized in 2012 as a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. Jason has been recognized for his innovative style of leadership and building a culture of dedication and sacrifice.

In an attempt to build healthy and productive school community, he initiated a contest to change the school mascot and colors. The students chose to be Bobcats. In support of the PLC philosophy of collaboration, the support staff defined exactly what it meant to be a Bobcat, including principles like wisdom, hard-work, and creativity. They developed eight traits, and treated each trait as a learning objective. Each trait was utilized as a school-wide theme each month. The theme was highlighted on the daily announcements with examples and reminders. Classroom teachers hung posters of the trait of the month in their classrooms and discussed what the trait meant with students. Students were recognized by staff members for meeting the expectations defined in their outcomes. Students were given Bobcat Pride slips; these slips were displayed in the entryway of the school for the whole community to see. They established a weekly Bobcat Pride celebration. Through the hard work of the staff, the school’s climate and achievement have drastically improved without adding staff or expenditures. The same staff members who were once feeling left out, now take great ownership in the school. By using the PLC philosophy, they have created an outstanding behavior modification system, and the school community has sustained it. Effective leaders maximize the talent of their staff.

Kwame Stephens, the principal of Pontiac High School in Pontiac, Michigan knows first-hand what it’s like to lead in changing and challenging times. He is forced to inspire a staff to improve student outcomes at the same time the district is facing serious fiscal austerity measures. Instead of complaining about what he could not control, he decided to focus on things that the staff had direct influence to control, and those things included climate and instruction.

As an instructional leader, he felt that he had to be clear about what effective teaching was and what effective teaching looked like. Once those were clear, he had to clarify how the staff would ensure that all students were exposed to effective teaching. Recognizing the gravity of the moment, the staff created a very detailed Instructional Learning Cycle (ILC) to initiate the process of ensuring that all students would be exposed to effective teaching. At the center of the ILC were four instructional focus questions rooted in the PLC process (DuFour, DuFour, 2012). These questions focus on curriculum alignment, formative assessment, academic intervention, and academic enrichment. Each staff member was expected to implement the structure of the ILC and regular feedback with each teacher was initiated to ensure implementation of the process with fidelity. The implementation and monitoring of the ILC removed the ambiguity from the teaching process and served as a road map that led to improved learning for students.

The power of the ILC concept is found in its creative and methodical development and implementation. Chip and Dan Heath point out in their book Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard (2011 Heath and Heath), critical moves must be scripted; meaning ambiguous goals must be translated into clear behaviors. Implementation of the ILC organized the most critical process, the teaching process. The staff understood that in challenging times, self-discipline and organization were paramount. They needed to improve, despite dwindling resources and mounting challenges. This represents the challenge of the modern educator and it is one that we all must meet.

Works Cited

Bellanca, James and Brandt, Ron (2010), 21st Century Schools: Rethinking How Students Learn, Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN

DuFour, R., DuFour, R. (2012), The School leader’s Guide to Professional Learning Communities at Work, Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN

As schools and systems struggle to focus and align the talents of the diverse members of their organization, one critical tool stands out more than any other. That tool is language. Language is our auditory expression of thought. Whoever controls the language controls the organizational thinking. During the three years and 34 schools studied to create my book, Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division (2009), there was a distinct difference between a “healthy” school culture and a “toxic” school culture.

Healthy school cultures have been defined by Kent Peterson from the University of Wisconsin in the following manner:

Healthy school cultures have an unwavering belief in the ability of each student to achieve success and they pass that belief on to others in overt and covert ways. Educators create policies and procedures and adopt practices that support their belief in the ability of every student. (Cromwell 2002)

Peterson’s definition gives us insight into the inner-workings of a healthy and productive culture and his description informs us that there are two major components. A healthy culture begins with a belief in children, but it does not stop with just belief alone. Healthy cultures also institutionalize their belief through a series of policies and practices that align with their belief system. The practices of a healthy culture are aligned with their publicly stated belief in the ability of every student.

Toxic school cultures have also been defined by Kent Peterson and he describes them like this:

Toxic cultures believe that student success is based solely upon a students’ level of concern, attentiveness, prior knowledge, and willingness to comply with the demands of the school, and they articulate that belief in overt and covert ways. Educators create policies and procedures and adopt practices that support their belief in the impossibility of universal achievement. (Cromwell 2002)

Like in a healthy culture, toxic cultures start with a belief system, and that belief system grows and metastasizes into being institutionalized through policies, practices, and procedures.

Organizational Language

Based upon the definition given by Kent Peterson on healthy and toxic culture, it is apparent that they are very different. The focus of a healthy culture is on the success of students and the term “unwavering”, within its definition, describes the resolve of the educators in those environments. The term “unwavering” uncovers the fact that healthy school cultures recognize that students will arrive at school with different backgrounds, readiness levels, support, and commitment, but despite this diverse group of obstacles, they stay steadfast in their goal of high levels of learning for all of their students.

What language did educators use in a healthy school culture? They used the language of problem-solving. This language expressed a certain level of pragmatism that understood that problems will always exist, but the important thing is the way that we process and react to those problems. Schools are infamously known for their lack of predictability. Anytime you take hundreds of students from hundreds of different backgrounds and try to create a harmonious organization with one well defined goal, problems will arise. But, even in the face of this challenge, the educators that I studied practicing in healthy schools displayed an unusual calm that allowed them to analyze the problem, hypothesize, and propose and develop an experiment with the goal of eliminating the problem.

How did this problem-solving based language sound? The first observable characteristic was calm. In the healthiest schools in my study, they had a calm or coolness that was very easily observed. Whenever a dilemma presented itself, they automatically started discussing a course of action. It was very natural. Healthy school cultures owned their problems. Their language was prescriptive as opposed to descriptive. Like in other schools, they got tired, angry, and even frustrated, but their resolve did not change. Some of the phrases that were very common in the face of a challenging event were:

What do we do about it?

Why do you think that happened?

Let’s discuss it later?

Who do we need to get involved to solve this problem?

An important fact to note is that this language and disposition was modeled by school site administration in each and every case. So, it is safe to say that leadership sets the tone in the formal setting for what teachers will discuss and process in the informal setting. The irony in this situation is that site administration does not get access to the informal part of the organization, so the application of the language and disposition lie on the shoulders of the teachers and other non-administrative staff.

If healthy cultures have a language, what is the language of a toxic culture? A toxic culture’s language is rooted in frustration and emotion. Their language is descriptive and not prescriptive. Unlike a healthy culture, a toxic culture assigns blame for problems instead of owning the problem and collaborating to solve the problem. This disowning of the problem does not create an environment that nurtures self-reflection and collaborative organizational movement.

When confronted with issues, toxic cultures rely on an explanation of the problem in order to excuse themselves from any responsibility to solve the problem. So, consequently the language of a toxic culture focuses exclusively on the external forces that make their professional practice difficult and the organizational goals unattainable. This language is rooted in exasperation and flabbergast. Language often heard in a toxic culture when faced with a challenge or an obstacle:

I can’t believe that ……happened!

This is ridiculous!

Can you believe……..?

Someone needs to do something about this!

If only……..this problem would not exist!

If these phrases are a regular part of the interaction between staff members, the culture is toxic, and no meaningful growth will happen until the paradigm of that culture changes. Toxic environments by nature, do not allow anything of value to grow.

Practice New Language

As America faces new and compelling challenges in our educational system, we have to be poised to move with the times and deliver the type of services that our community deserves. I recognize that change has to happen at every level (site leadership, district leadership, and state and federal leadership) and I will deal seriously with these issues in the very near future, but the most powerful place to start is in the teacher culture. Teachers control the informal organization, and the language of that segment of the organization is paramount to the growth of schools. I would agree with many teachers that leadership, in many cases, make their jobs much more difficult than it needs to be. But, we know from labor statistics that the average tenure of a principal is 3.2 years at a school site and the average tenure of a teacher at a school site is 12.4 years (Sparks 2002). The teachers will be at a school a lot longer than the average administrator.

School cultures are not considered “healthy” or “toxic” based upon publicly stated beliefs and dogma. Their health or toxicity is determined by the consistent day-to-day interactions of their members. What can you can control? You can control what you express and what you allow others to express to you? Avoid conversations and interactions where the goal is to detach from issues and assign blame to others. Challenge those who use the informal venue to draw others into their downward spiral of blame to use their energy to come up with solutions to problems that are apparent to all and will not solve themselves.

With practice and consistent application, you will start to notice a new ethos. You will start to see colleagues work together and use their talents to make the school a happier and more productive place for everyone. The line between the formal and informal organizations will be erased. Trust will build and we will not waste human capital and potential. I am not promising that this new way of expression and focus will be easy, but it is well worth it. Your school will sing a new song. Are you willing to take the brave plunge?

The structure and hierarchy of organizations have always been fascinating to me. Schools are by far, the most fascinating organization to study these phenomena. In decades past, the hierarchy was very clear, the administrator was the boss and everyone followed his/her direction or they were subject to his/her wrath! The changing nature and purpose of school has rendered this top-down authoritarian viewpoint of leadership outdated and obsolete. The demands placed on schools to develop their students and ensure that they can demonstrate knowledge in a world that is becoming smaller and more competitive requires leadership to be exhibited at every level.

Some of the more recent additions to the organizational structure of schools are the coaching and curriculum positions. These educators, who do not directly instruct students and have no punitive power over teachers, are charged with interacting with teachers and providing them with needed guidance to improve instruction, while supporting administrators in their curricular initiatives. This places the coach in a precarious position. He/She is neither a teacher nor an administrator. Oft-times, they find themselves caught in an educational purgatory where they are not considered colleagues by the teachers and they are not considered equals by administrators.

The question in the 21st century should not be who’s in charge? The question should be what is my role and my responsibility? The level of interaction necessary to create competitive and proficient school systems requires relinquishing ego in exchange for committed service. Instructional coaches and curriculum leaders should not have to fight an immature battle of privilege through legacy. Educators should embrace the expertise and assistance that they provide to ease the burden of the responsibility for preparing students for a world very different than we experienced decades ago.

In my research on creating optimum learning environments, I have found that healthy school cultures embrace the assistance and guidance of those who can help them meet their goals and improve their professional practice. This embrace of assistance did not happen in a vacuum. In these learning environments, I found that three primary commitments were established.

Commitment #1 – A Focus on Service

The highly collaborative environments in my studies have made a profound and selfless commitment to service. This commitment went beyond the idealistic mission statement and innocuous posters on the walls, and these commitments were materialized in solid policies, practices, and procedures. These schools developed goals collectively and held one another mutually accountable for their role in the school’s ascension. In these learning environments, educators embraced the support of experts, both internally and externally, because the focus was on the pursuit of student development, not personal privilege and autonomy.

Commitment #2 – A Commitment to Learning for Professionals

The second commitment that was evident in healthy schools was the staff’s consistent pursuit of knowledge. Rick DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker wrote in the book Professional Learning Communities at Work that, “professional learning communities operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous job-embedded learning for educators”(DuFour and Eaker 1998). Effective schools are staffed with educators who realize that the commitment to be professional is life-long and does not stop after completing a university course of study. These schools had no problem embracing a colleague who may be able to guide them in an area where they needed help because the end result of that collaborative relationship would be gains for children.

Commitment #3 – A Collaborative Infrastructure

It is not reasonable to expect a school that does not practice collaboration among its own staff to embrace and collaborative with a coach or curriculum specialist from the outside. Steven Covey identifies that human being are creatures of ‘habit’ and habits have to be nurtured and cultivated (Covey 1989). District administrators must be careful about their investment of resources in schools that do not embrace internal collaboration. If this variable is not present, how can district leaders expect them to embrace the expertise of a curriculum and instructional coach from the outside? I would highly advise that a school district support the construction of a structure of internal collaboration at each school before setting up curriculum specialist for failure by sending them into highly divisive cultures where there is a high-likelihood of rejection.

A Rebirth of Commitment to Children

We live in a day and time that demands that we pay close attention to the development of our children. The ever-shrinking world has become more complex and a nation’s ability to prepare their children for this new world will determine the viability of the community for the future. The old, divisive hierarchy of schools, which oft-times placed the concerns of the adults ahead of the concerns of children, must die. Our organizations have to be quick and nimble, and change will probably be the only constant in schools for some years to come. Don’t fight it, embrace it! Schools have to look and operate very differently than they have in the past and our future is counting on our cooperation. We can no longer waste time arguing about who is in charge because the answer has to be All of Us.